<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>FAQ</title>
</head>
<body>
<h3 class="headerstyle">
<table style="width: 100%; padding-right: 2mm">
  <tr>
    <td align="left" valign="middle">Why PicoContainer Logging?</td>
  </tr>
</table>
</h3>
<div>
<p>PicoContainer Logging provides a logging facade to different logging tools, but unlike some other similar
facades, it fully and truly supports Inversion of Control and Dependency Injection. In particular, it allows the <b>concurrent</b>
use of different logging tools for different components in a completely configurable way.</p>
</div>
<h3 class="headerstyle">
<table style="width: 100%; padding-right: 2mm">
  <tr>
    <td align="left" valign="middle">What is the difference with Commons Logging?</td>
  </tr>
</table>
</h3>
<div>
<p>Unlike Commons Logging it does use any discovery system to look up which tool is present in the classpath. The
concurrent presence of log4j.jar and other logging libraries and applicable properties does not prevent the user of it with JDK
logging.</p>
</div>
<h3 class="headerstyle">
<table style="width: 100%; padding-right: 2mm">
  <tr>
    <td align="left" valign="middle">Why choose yet another facade when my code is sprinkled with Commons Logging
    already?</td>
  </tr>
</table>
</h3>
<div>
<p>We encourage the use of the <a href="monitor-pattern.html">Monitor pattern</a> to abstract the dependency on any
logging framework, so it is very easy to upgrade and switch from one to the other.</p>
<p>Secondly, the PicoContainer Logger interface is actually compatible with the Commons Logging Log interface, and implementations of our 
Logger can easily be decorated to also implement the Log interface from Commons-Logging</p>
</div>

</body>

</html>
